Making “secondary intervention” work in a three-tier responsiveness-to-intervention model: findings from the first-grade longitudinal reading study of the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities

Responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI) is a method for both preventing and helping to identify learning disabilities. An important feature is its multi-tier structure: primary intervention (tier 1) refers to classroom instruction; secondary intervention (tier 2) usually involves more intensive pullout, small-group instruction; and tertiary intervention (tier 3) typically denotes most intensive special education. Despite RTI’s popularity and promise, there are many questions about how to implement it effectively and efficiently. So, in 2001, the Office of Special Education Programs in the U.S. Department of Education funded the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities to conduct two large-scale, field-based, longitudinal, and experimental RTI studies. Both studies, one in reading and one in math, were conducted at first grade, with annual follow up for 3 years in the reading study and 2 years in the math study. This article summarizes findings from the reading study, which was designed to answer three basic questions about RTI’s pivotal secondary intervention: Who should participate in it? What instruction should be conducted to decrease the prevalence of reading disabilities? How should responsiveness and non-responsiveness be defined?

[1]  Lynn S. Fuchs,et al.  Responding to Nonresponders: An Experimental Field Trial of Identification and Intervention Methods , 2005 .

[2]  Lynn S. Fuchs,et al.  Treatment Validity: A Unifying Concept for Reconceptualizing the Identification of Learning Disabilities. , 1998 .

[3]  J A Swets,et al.  Psychological Science Can Improve Diagnostic Decisions , 2000, Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society.

[4]  Lynn S. Fuchs,et al.  Redefining Learning Disabilities as Inadequate Response to Instruction: The Promise and Potential Problems , 2003 .

[5]  D. Speece,et al.  Classification in Context: An Alternative Approach to Identifying Early Reading Disability. , 2001 .

[6]  Edward R. Sipay,et al.  Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers : Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific Reading disability , 1996 .

[7]  R. Palmer,et al.  Introduction to the theory of neural computation , 1994, The advanced book program.

[8]  H. Catts.  Early identification of dyslexia: Evidence from a follow-up study of speech-language impaired children , 1991, Annals of dyslexia.

[9]  D. Hosmer,et al.  Applied Logistic Regression , 1991 .

[10]  R. Felton,et al.  Early Identification of Children at Risk for Reading Disabilities , 1992 .

[11]  T. Conway,et al.  Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to instruction. , 1999 .

[12]  J. Mitchell.  Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing , 2001 .

[13]  Lynn S. Fuchs,et al.  Identifying Reading Disabilities by Responsiveness-to-Instruction: Specifying Measures and Criteria , 2004 .

[14]  Anthony S. Bryk,et al.  Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods , 1992 .

[15]  Sharon Vaughn,et al.  Response to Instruction as a Means of Identifying Students with Reading/Learning Disabilities , 2003 .

[16]  Rollanda E. O'Connor.  Increasing the Intensity of Intervention in Kindergarten and First Grade , 2000 .

[17]  Mark W. Lipsey,et al.  Practical Meta-Analysis , 2000 .

[18]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Classification and Regression Trees , 1984 .

[19]  Louis Danielson,et al.  Identification of learning disabilities : research to practice , 2002 .

[20]  Anders Krogh,et al.  Introduction to the theory of neural computation , 1994, The advanced book program.

[21]  C. A. Rashotte,et al.  Test of Word Reading Efficiency , 1999 .

[22]  Rollanda E. O'Connor,et al.  Prediction of Reading Disabilities in Kindergarten and First Grade , 1999 .

[23]  J. K. Uhry.  Predicting Low Reading From Phonological Awareness and Classroom Print , 1993 .

[24]  Lynn S. Fuchs,et al.  The Prevention, Identification, and Cognitive Determinants of Math Difficulty. , 2005 .

[25]  T. Conway,et al.  Intensive Remedial Instruction for Children with Severe Reading Disabilities , 2001, Journal of learning disabilities.

[26]  L. Fuchs,et al.  Selecting At-Risk Readers in First Grade for Early Intervention: A Two-Year Longitudinal Study of Decision Rules and Procedures , 2006 .

[27]  P. Accardo,et al.  Specific Reading Disability: A View of the Spectrum. , 1998 .

[28]  J. Torgesen.  The Prevention of Reading Difficulties , 2002 .

[29]  N. A. Badian.  Preschool prediction: Orthographic and phonological skills, and reading , 1994, Annals of dyslexia.

[30]  Deborah C. Simmons,et al.  The Importance and Decision-Making Utility of a Continuum of Fluency-Based Indicators of Foundational Reading Skills for Third-Grade High-Stakes Outcomes , 2001 .

[31]  Douglas Fuchs,et al.  Responsiveness‐to‐Intervention: Definitions, Evidence, and Implications for the Learning Disabilities Construct , 2003 .

[32]  Lynn S. Fuchs,et al.  Mathematics Screening and Progress Monitoring at First Grade: Implications for Responsiveness to Intervention , 2007 .